Policy Options Article on Faulty Logic of Sexual Assault Trials

"We’re mining Canadian court transcripts to better understand how interrogation strategies used in the courtroom have an impact on decision-making in Canadian courts. In sexual assault court cases there are usually two conflicting stories: she says 'rape,' he says 'sex.' Who is lying? The court must weigh the evidence and decide. But how do courts 'think'? (...)"

"We found repeated examples of three categories of illogical arguments used by defence lawyers in the cross-examinations of victim-witnesses. These arguments were largely accepted by the courts, were not objected to by Crowns and often appeared to be associated with an acquittal of the accused."

The four authors, Amanda Parriag, Edward Renner, Laura Park, and Wendy Hovdestad, had conducted a similar analysis of 105 sexual assault trials some 20 years ago and conclude that many of the same logical fallacies are being committed today.

Disclaimer

Neither the content nor the views contained in this blog represent the positions of my employer or of any association to which I belong. Any links to a news article, an academic study or another blog post should not be considered to indicate any form of endorsement on my part or on that of my institution. This is a purely personal blog for the purposes of sharing information about library issues and legal research.